Best approach speed for a Cessna 182

Betmerick

Betmerick

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
31
Display Name
Display name:
Betmerick
Hello everyone!

I was wondering if anyone training in a 182 is doing their approaches at 90kts? My instructor has me doing them at 105 but things are happening that much quicker and getting back on the path/slope has to be done quicker. I'm sure that's okay for a seasoned Instrument pilot but in training I prefer slower if I could! Should I ask for 90 or is that too slow for a 182?
 
There is no material difference in flying an approach at 90 or 105.

I would recommend MUCH higher, cruise, and lower....................and do them until you can do them half asleep.

Right now you are just having a problem with approaches in general.....speed having nothing to do with it.
 
In my restart model, 18.5” and 10 degrees of flaps gives me 100 KIAS with me and the instructor on board. At the FAF, 12.5” gives me a 500 FPM descent at 100 with little or no re-trimming required. No complaints about speed from ATC, and slowing the airplane down after breaking out has not been a problem either.
 
Once you get used to the rate of events at 105, 90 should be a tad easier?

I just finished my IFR lesson #4 and my CFI likes to finish with an approach. We aim for 90 as a standard. I fly a 182P.

IFR student opinion: Really, just give it what it wants in order to stay on the glide path at whatever requested speed, is what I’m learning (pitch airspeed, power altitude). Flying by the numbers is great...until the numbers don’t make sense or work for whatever mechanical failure or wind oddity or other reason (I’ve learned that as a VFR pilot, and think it may also apply to IFR). What if your tach or MP gauge fails, what if you have a heck of a head wind, what if your ASI is whack, etc.
 
I seem to recall 100kts is with no flaps is pretty typical, Around here Maintain maximum forward speed is a pretty common request from ATC. If you can’t do that you will likely get broken off the approach early.

Haven’t done many approaches in a 182 for a a while, but scheduled to do a few later this month.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Betmerick said:
Hello everyone!

I was wondering if anyone training in a 182 is doing their approaches at 90kts? My instructor has me doing them at 105 but things are happening that much quicker and getting back on the path/slope has to be done quicker. I'm sure that's okay for a seasoned Instrument pilot but in training I prefer slower if I could! Should I ask for 90 or is that too slow for a 182?
Click to expand...

90 KIAS / 10 degree flap is the proper instrument approach configuration in a 182.

The speed allows entering a circling approach below the Category A (91 knots), allows for full flaps extension in all models, and allows smooth transition from approach to landing from an ILS.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
90 KIAS / 10 degree flap is the proper instrument approach configuration in a 182.

The speed allows entering a circling approach below the Category A (91 knots), allows for full flaps extension in all models, and allows smooth transition from approach to landing from an ILS.
Click to expand...
I agree with this and it is my target. I don’t like to have worry about getting slower on short final or over the numbers bleeding a lot of speed.
 
Clip4 said: ↑
90 KIAS / 10 degree flap is the proper instrument approach configuration in a 182.

The speed allows entering a circling approach below the Category A (91 knots), allows for full flaps extension in all models, and allows smooth transition from approach to landing from an ILS.

That was my training setup, but....When the check ride came, we arrived at BWI at a high traffic time, and normal went out the window. 4 miles outside the marker, the controller requested a half rate left turn to allow an airliner to pass.

As the localizer started to center, still 4 milers outside the marker, he asked me to maintain 120 to keep spacing for the following airliner. I asked the examiner if we were landing, or going around. He said go around, and I accepted the 120 knot speed. He warned that I was not going not be allowed to use speed for an excuse for failing the approach, I said OK, and flew it to minimum, and went missed.

Your instructor is probably using the higher speed to keep from having conflicts with the other traffic at the airport he uses, or the DPE uses. I found the 120 knot ILS was smoother than most of my 90 knot ones.

Just remember, into shorter runways, fly the slower speeds, and use your flaps as you get visual. At 120 knots, you would float for a mile before reaching suitable touchdown speed.
 
You should not be aiming for a particular airspeed as much as setting an approach power and accepting small variations in airspeed. In a 182, about 1800 RPM, 10-deg flap and gear down should get you about 90-100 knots depending on weight. This will be below the prop governor range, so you can move the prop control to full without causing it to rev up.
 
2200 rpm and 16-17” MP clean. Gear up - that is a slippery bird....
 
My configuration as I approach the IAF is 90KIAS and 10 degrees flaps.
 
I have a 182 and use 90kias for approach level. I configure for that right before entering the approach course. I fly the entire approach up until FAF at approach level. I don't put in flaps until FAF. But that's just me. Plenty of other ways to do it. Find your own, and do it the same way every time.
 
I always shot for 90 because that's the speed that makes the most sense for a 182 in relation to the missed approach times on the chart. Sure, you could do the math, but who wants to do that in IMC on an approach?

In pratice. I think it's more comfortable around 100-105, and given there's almost always an RNAV these days, that works fine.
 
I also use 90 kts and 10 deg flaps, which should give you a safe margin above the stall speed (verify with the POH).

Above 90 kts could also change your minimums since you could move to category B or C approach minimums, which may or may not make a difference in acquiring the visual references needed to land. The more speed you have if you punch out of the clouds at the 200’ minimums, the more work you have to do to get the plane to land and stop before you run out of runway, especially if it’s wet.
 
Oddly, the numbers that work for me are the same as the Navion. Approach at 90, over the fence at 75, touch down at 60.
 
Fly like you train and train like you fly....

Don't think I'm brave enough to fly Vref or 1.3 Vs or 1.3 x stall speed in IMC, especially if I have to consider executing a MAP in IMC. Once I'm below the IMC, sure.....
 
No reason for absolutes either. Flying to a 5000’ runway with a gusty crosswind, yeah a little extra speed is just fine.

When in a training program normally one leans towards the syllabus & instructor techniques. There are allowances for for reasonable variation once on your own.

Then again, pilots can disagree on what’s reasonable.
 
Craigd31 said:
Fly like you train and train like you fly....
Click to expand...

I've heard this phrase many times, but don't agree with it. One should train like it is an emergency, so that normal flying will feel downright boring.
 
I'm not debating, this is just FYI....from the Instrument Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-15B page 4-9. I concede that it will be different for different pilots and planes.

Small Airplanes

Most small airplanes maintain a speed well in excess of 1.3 times VSO on an instrument approach. An airplane with a stall speed of 50 knots (VSO) has a normal approach speed of 65 knots. However, this same airplane may maintain 90 knots (1.8 VSO) while on the final segment of an instrument approach. The landing gear will most likely be extended at the beginning of the descent to the minimum descent altitude, or upon intercepting the glideslope of the instrument landing system. The pilot may also select an intermediate flap setting for this phase of the approach.The airplane at this speed has good positive speed stability, as represented by point A on Figure 4-11. Flying in this regime permits the pilot to make slight pitch changes without changing power settings, and accept minor speed changes knowing that when the pitch is returned to the initial setting, the speed returns to the original setting. This reduces the pilot’s workload.
 
Betmerick said:
Hello everyone!

I was wondering if anyone training in a 182 is doing their approaches at 90kts? My instructor has me doing them at 105 but things are happening that much quicker and getting back on the path/slope has to be done quicker. I'm sure that's okay for a seasoned Instrument pilot but in training I prefer slower if I could! Should I ask for 90 or is that too slow for a 182?
Click to expand...
Context, context, context. At a small, quiet airport, I'll fly my approach at 90 KIAS in my Cherokee to give myself a nice, relaxed time (though boredom can be an issue). At a busy airport with tower trying to slot me into a stream of jet traffic and asking for "best forward speed," I'll fly it at 120 KIAS (in calm air), pedal to the metal, until about a mile back. Our little planes can change glidepath and bleed off airspeed much, much more easily than the heavy iron, so it's only courteous to be flexible, and those busy airports usually have very long runways we can use to burn off any extra speed.
 
As a renter and student that's one thing I've found a bit frustrating.
Even on check-outs many instructors are quick to tell...well really direct you to match what their habit is. It does not matter much what you or even your last instructor liked to do.... even though it worked well.....so now I have some different combination of setting to remember instead of what i knew!
 
I was taught that for a stabilized approach, gear down 3 miles prior to the FAF and first flaps setting 2 miles prior to the FAF ( I did my instrument checkride in a retract). That gets you to your stable approach speed by the time you hit the FAF, so long as you have the right power settings. It certainly works.
 
It is almost never possible to be in a "stabilized approach" prior to the FAF. Many of us were taught to transition to the final approach to slow to the approach speed further out on the approach and (in most planes this works), drop the gear at the FAF to transition to the stabilized descent.
 
I fly "stabilised approaches" IFR (because it's what ATC and other pilots expect), but VFR, I think it's nuts to be on a "stablised" 3° glidepath in a piston single at FAF distance (4–5 nm back). You're flying way too low to make a forced landing, and you're dragging it in on power, hanging from the prop. Those glidepaths are designed for airliners, which have a shallower glide and can't change configuration as quickly. A 5–6° glidepath is more appropriate for our little piston poppers (plus, it's easier to judge your landing point that way).
 
Stabilized speed approaches are for swept-wing jets. For the piston-powered airplanes we fly it means deceleration is stabilized.

Cruise speed to glideslope intercept, pull the throttle exactly as needed to be at landing speed 50' above the ground.
 
kgruber said:
Stabilized speed approaches are for swept-wing jets. For the piston-powered airplanes we fly it means deceleration is stabilized.

Cruise speed to glideslope intercept, pull the throttle exactly as needed to be at landing speed 50' above the ground.
Click to expand...

I don't want to lessen the importance of a stabilized approach, but being able to fly an approach at high speeds, or from too high or too low an altitude, and be able to land is a skill worth developing. Despite a stabilized approach, all of it goes out the window on short final - we reduce power to zero, increase pitch drastically, and contend with the sudden change in torque, wind drifts and runway alignment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top